Stuart Henderson wrote: > On 2008/01/29 09:20, Richard P. Koett wrote: >> The audit I was shown stated that vulnerable versions are prior to >> "1.1.4-bs". These version numbers seem to follow a pattern I don't >> understand. Would I be correct in interpreting "bs" as later than >> "b3p1"? > > sure that's bs not b5?
I'm beginning to suspect it's a typo and I'm seeking clarification from the auditors. Thanks to all who replied to this thread.
